Characterize Republicans/Democrats (1 Viewer)

Thales750

Formerly Jsanders
Local time
Today, 12:37
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
2,061
Re: Characterize Republicans/Democrates

a rep. would be standing over john henry pushing him harder and harder to pound more nails into the railroad, and a dem would be constantly telling john henry to stop pounding nails because he doesn't need to work that hard.


That's a good one.
 

pbaldy

Wino Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:37
Joined
Aug 30, 2003
Messages
36,118
You're a victim of Republican propaganda.

I'm not sure what I said that made you say that. I don't support the party. I said they were two sides of the same coin; ie, both bad. About the only Republican worth a vote is Ron Paul.
 

Pauldohert

Something in here
Local time
Today, 09:37
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
2,101
I'm not sure what I said that made you say that. I don't support the party. I said they were two sides of the same coin; ie, both bad. About the only Republican worth a vote is Ron Paul.

Is that the Tranny?
 

pbaldy

Wino Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:37
Joined
Aug 30, 2003
Messages
36,118
The only references to tranny I can think of would be a car transmission or a transexual. In either case, no, that's not him. He's the one who believes in actually following the Constitution.
 

Banana

split with a cherry atop.
Local time
Today, 09:37
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
6,318
I believe "tranny" is in reference to RuPaul, who is a although different person.
 

Vassago

Former Staff Turned AWF Retiree
Local time
Today, 12:37
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
4,751
or rights for gay lovers to get married. Wow, that last one sure did cause a stir (which by the way, was another republican lie, the insurance companies didn’t want to be forced to foot the bill for gay lovers, so guess what, we don’t have it. As if any working person in the country could really care less if any other two people want to get married, I know I was too busy losing my career in home building).

That's a very interesting point. Of course the insurance companies would be against having to cover more people. I know the states that have made it legal have been threatened by the insurance companies to drop coverage there. There has been some upheaval over that. I wonder which party the insurance companies line the pockets of... :rolleyes:
 

ajetrumpet

Banned
Local time
Today, 11:37
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
5,638
About the only Republican worth a vote is Ron Paul.
why?

is a rep that DOESN'T have millions in the bank worth voting for? they all do, and they all seem to be good bs'ers. but of course the other party is too, so what's the dif.
 

pbaldy

Wino Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:37
Joined
Aug 30, 2003
Messages
36,118
As I said:

He's the one who believes in actually following the Constitution.

His nickname is "Dr. No", as he is often the only one voting against a bill (and he's a doctor).
 

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 11:37
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
26,999
As to the original question of a cartoon depiction of republicans and democrats,

Imagine a big, heavy balloon (of the kind you ride at state fairs) labeled "Government."

The democrat is pumping up the balloon.

The republican is running around with pins putting holes in the balloon.

To me there are several differences between the two that are functionally significant.

Democrats don't believe people know how to take care of themselves, so will try to take care of them - via welfare, social security, medicare, and lots of agencies to review, oversee, direct, and otherwise control private activity.

Republicans believe that market forces are self-regulating and don't need that kind of oversight.

Both are, of course, wrong - because there is a balance point to be had for regulatory agencies. When you continually cut budgets from agencies and then cut the budgets of the watchdog agencies that watch the other agencies, things like the Wall Street debacle and the BP oil spill occur.

Next difference: Entitlement vs. Opportunity - clearly a democrat vs. republican situation. Democrats want to entitle you so they can put you in their back pocket come voting time. Republicans prefer to spend that money on non-social issues. We need balance because spending does help put money into circulation. Saved money does nobody any good once the amount saved gets big enough.

Next difference: Civil rights vs. Moral Majority. Generally a democrat vs. republican thing. Again, we need that balance. GWB cut back on some rights, citing security concerns. Obama wants to grant rights to gays. GWB was not the sharpest tack in the drawer when it came to rights.

Heck, we could go on for a while on the dichotomies. The final difference between them is a matter of style, not particularly substance. Both spend money. More money than we have. The USA taxpayer actually needs to form a revolt and take back some of that money. Mark Twain said it: Nobody's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.
 

pbaldy

Wino Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:37
Joined
Aug 30, 2003
Messages
36,118
I generally agree with you Doc. I would perhaps disagree with "...things like the Wall Street debacle...". I would suggest that two major causes of that were both attributable to government involvement, not the free market.

First is the combination of government guarantees of loans and the encouragement (pressure?) to make loans to less than qualified people. In a "free" market, banks would never have made those loans, as their prospects for getting repaid were marginal at best. They made them (often without even looking at the paperwork) because they knew the government would take them. They didn't care if the people were qualified or not.

Second, the bill that opened up the credit default swaps (signed by Democrat Clinton by the way) contained explicit language that barred states from enforcing their laws that would have prohibited CDS (anti-gambling type laws). Seems like they knew it was wrong, if they had to include that language. There was a nice 60 Minutes piece on this, which I can find if you'd like.

There were certainly a lot of factors, but in my mind the foundation the house of cards was built on was the government guarantees. Without that, much of the rest could never have happened.

I'd point out that the Patriot Act, which Obama said he would eliminate or revise if elected, has been renewed without change. It seems like once anybody has their hand on the steering wheel, the horrible intrusions on privacy/liberty committed by their predecessors aren't so bad after all. :rolleyes:
 

dkinley

Access Hack by Choice
Local time
Today, 11:37
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
2,016
Re: Characterize Republicans/Democrates

I'd say Robin Hood. Taking away from the rich and giving to the poor.

Sorry, Adam - I take a bit of offense to the simplicity of that statement which has been drilled into our collective conciousness.

Robin Hood did NOT steal from the rich and give to the poor ... has everyone forgotten that there was royalty involved in the story? The simplistic approach is the result of Progressives changing the interpretation of a story over time.

Robin Hood stole the people's money back from the GOVERNMENT (and its royal cronies) as a way to represent resistance to tyranny.

-dK
 

dkinley

Access Hack by Choice
Local time
Today, 11:37
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
2,016
Saved money does nobody any good once the amount saved gets big enough.

I agree with pretty much the entire post save this remark. Shouldn't the viewpoint be that the more I save, the more I guarentee I will not be a burden on you or anyone else? Who can foretell my future medical conditions that I may want to care for?

By what right does anyone have to say who can save as much as they want?

I don't think money circulation is the issue - our country wasn't founded on a consumer-driven concept ... that was introduced later as a way to obtain more tax money. I believe our country was founded on individual liberty and self-sufficiency.

This is besides the point in assuming that IF there was such a thing as too much savings then it would follow that there is a finite of wealth in this material world. If that was the case, there would be no entrepenuer spirit and everyone would sit around waiting on the money bucket to get passed their way or accept their lot in life as either a 'have' or 'have not' depending on their birth. I believe the interpretation of liberty also means not having to accept and gain upward mobility through honest and productive work if that is what one desires.

I don't need any money if I can make do for myself or I can subtract from my own personal desires. It doesn't mean I am without compassion for others - it just means that the madness that has fomented in our country over the last 90 years has to stop.

-dK
 

pbaldy

Wino Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:37
Joined
Aug 30, 2003
Messages
36,118
We need balance because spending does help put money into circulation.

I would also disagree with this. Government spending represents money that has been taken out circulation in the first place (via taxation), so it isn't really stimulating so much as redistributing, which I fundamentally disagree with.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 12:37
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
Government spending represents money that has been taken out circulation in the first place (via taxation), so it isn't really stimulating so much as redistributing, which I fundamentally disagree with.
Not quite accurate. Government spending does not take money out of circulation ,however it does re-circulate money as does private enterprise. Don't forget that government employees also buy refrigerators, cars, computers, and so on.

Also, in terms of circulation, the government is dumping money that we don't into the economy. Eventually, we will be hit with massive inflation. The government should actually be taking money out of circulation, but that would be political suicide.

Government spending can also improve our economy through the construction of roads and other civic improvements. Some spending, such as that for the military, does not improve the economy but is still necessary.

I will agree that in many situations, government spending is not very efficient or well thought out.

Also, taxation can be divided into two broad categories. One is the collection of money to run the government. The other is the actual redistribution of wealth. Tax the higher income brackets to subsidize the lower income group.
 
Last edited:

pbaldy

Wino Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:37
Joined
Aug 30, 2003
Messages
36,118
You're looking at the second step but ignoring the first. Sure, government employees buy stuff...with money that was taken away from somebody else. Money that those people now can not spend on stuff. Don't compare the voluntary circulation of money in the private sector with compulsory "we know what's best for you" government spending.

Government doesn't have a money tree in the back yard they use for this spending. They basically have 3 ways to get money to spend; taxation, borrowing, and the printing press. If we don't pay for current spending through taxes, we pass it on to our children either by saddling them with debt (sort of a Ponzi scheme) or the inflation you spoke of (and apparently don't mind). I might grant you that the second two aren't "taking money out of circulation", but they may actually be worse in the long run.

I would also correct your last statement. It's spending that can be divided into those two categories. The first is a legitimate function of government, the second I've already given my opinion of.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 12:37
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
Don't compare the voluntary circulation of money in the private sector with compulsory "we know what's best for you" government spending.
That was not my intent. The current approach in government spending is Bread and Circuses to "buy" votes for the politicians. Furthermore, the new health plan apparently forces people to buy health insurance. I would hope that in the inevitable lawsuits which follow that this will be struck down.

I would also correct your last statement. It's spending that can be divided into those two categories. The first is a legitimate function of government, the second I've already given my opinion of.
We're quibbling over accounting practices. If you take a look at a paycheck stub, utilities bill, property tax bill; they all have various collection "tax accounts" that in theory are used to fund specific programs. I will acknowledge that financial gimmicks (PC version "innovative solutions") are used to juggle how the money is actually spent. This practice is clearly deceptive and hides from the public the true cost of many programs.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 12:37
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,617
Imagine a big, heavy balloon (of the kind you ride at state fairs) labeled "Government."

The democrat is pumping up the balloon.

The republican is running around with pins putting holes in the balloon.
Great analogy!:)
 

Adam Caramon

Registered User
Local time
Today, 12:37
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
822
Re: Characterize Republicans/Democrates

Sorry, Adam - I take a bit of offense to the simplicity of that statement which has been drilled into our collective conciousness.

As far as I recall, no one can actually prove if Robin Hood was ever even a real person. As part of popular culture, he is directly associated with robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. You may take offense, but I'd say it is an appropriate comparison, especially when we're asked to characterize something (i.e. give our opinion).
 

dkinley

Access Hack by Choice
Local time
Today, 11:37
Joined
Jul 29, 2008
Messages
2,016
As far as I recall, no one can actually prove if Robin Hood was ever even a real person. As part of popular culture, he is directly associated with robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. You may take offense, but I'd say it is an appropriate comparison, especially when we're asked to characterize something (i.e. give our opinion).

Agreed with beginning and end. However, it is the 'popular culture' that has twisted the story that went with it. If you note the 'pop culture' at the time the story manifested he stole from the king and most notably the king's merchants. This story, along with many others such as the Little Red Hen, was passed to us to protect those that would not openly defy their masters - so that we would learn and not forget.

I apologize if I disrespected you in an attempt to set the record straight, especially when I feel that they (the Democrats) are not heroic in their attempt to redistribute wealth ... especially since they are announcing to do it on a global scale. If your opinion is that tyranny is good and wish to propel the notion of a twisted story and elevate the looters of productive people to heroic status, then that too, is your opinion and I hope that you come out for the better when it happens - even though history has told us that noone except for the elite few make out and the rest suffer as noted in the stories past down to us. You know, those stories of Robin Hood in their original form .... :D

-dK
 

pbaldy

Wino Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:37
Joined
Aug 30, 2003
Messages
36,118
I think the point of the Robin Hood analogy is that the story revolves around Robin Hood stealing from those who had forcibily taken from the common man, and giving it back. The phrase "steal from the rich and give to the poor" oversimplifies that to imply that it's okay to steal from anybody who has money. I agree with dk that it's important to distinguish between the two. There's a big difference between "taking back" and "taking from anybody who has more than I do".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom